New and innovative product design is something that all companies strive for. Whether it is creating a completely new product category, or just improving upon what the current standard is, companies realize that if they stand still for too long, they will get left behind by their competitors. A good product manager know that before you can focus on the profits, you have to keep the consumer's opinions and wants in mind while designing a product. This week, I read an article explaining the process of empathetic design. Basically, the concept implies that companies should focus on the real or perceived needs of their customers. It involves truly understanding, and analyzing the information gained about behaviors, and what consumers really look for in a product.
One interesting point in the article is about how companies should appease to the consumers needs, or create the needs they may not necessarily realize exists. As for the latter, there are a few ways to look at it. I do agree to some extent that consumers honestly don't know exactly what they want. As a consumer myself, I've definitely felt this way before. Creating demand in the market is important for sustaining longevity of a product. The question is: when has this gone to far? Although for some people this isn't true, I personally don't like to be told what I need to satisfy my needs and wants. How can a company still stimulate the need for the product without being too forceful? A balance between the two is key. It is important to make consumers feel like they have a choice, but not lessen the value of that freedom by shoving a new product down their throat.
Another article I read this week discussed "how to design the perfect product." The authors discuss, to great length, the value of recreating simple concepts. For example, the potato peeler is brought up. Although useful, potato peelers aren't complex products. The authors talk about adding more comfortable handles to them, etc. With additions like these, products move towards the top in technology and style. With that move comes a higher expense for the consumers. If a company is going to make such changes to a product, it is absolutely necessary for them to be deemed necessary and have some value to the consumer. If I'm going to pay more just for the aesthetics and style, it is going to take more effort for that company. Just because a product is newly designed doesn't mean it is going to sell solely based on that one aspect. Consumers enjoy what they are familiar and aren't always receptive of change.
The bottom line is this: companies have a great power. They have the opportunity sway and influence the society with their work. This power must be harnessed, and not used to take advantage of customers.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
In With The Old, and Out With The New?
Product rejuvenation is one of the topics that I read about this week. This concept involves the reintroduction of an abandoned product or one with a quickly declining consumer interest. It is inevitable that hundreds of products will lose their touch, but the question is, what do you do next? There are basically two options, either clear the drawing board and start over, or recreate the same idea and put it back on the market. There are many advantages to product rejuvenation such as less risk, lower costs, less time necessary, cheaper market share, and hopefully higher profits. These are all prime factors in the decision process, and a good manager is always look for the most effective and efficient route.
Although this may seem like a perfect route to take, and I do believe that is has the potential to be very successful, this article really just touched the surface. Before making any business decision, especially one of this magnitude, any good business man know that you have to weigh the pros AND the cons. One apparent advantage is that you already have a captive audience. Because of this, it may seem that it is going to take less effort to win those "old users" over again. In one sense, this is true. Consumers that were avid users of a certain product will become nostalgic when they hear that brand or product they used to buy years ago. At the same time, brand loyalty can only go so far. With all of the changes our society is constantly going through, that product that was widely accepted and utilize five years ago maybe obsolete now. The general concept of the product may still be useful, but some drastic changes will have to made to appease those "old users." This isn't to say that some consumers will purchase something just for its nostalgic value, but to keep a product in the market much longer, more needs to be done to sustain its success.
A lot of it depends on the goals of the company. One reason a company may use product rejuvenation is to fill in a gap between productivity periods. For example, a typical scenario could be that Company A needs more time to fully develop their newest product. In the mean time, the revival of a past successful product could buy more time, and keep their brand fresh in the minds of their consumers. This is more of a short term goal. Another use for rejuvenation, in terms of a new product release, could be to show consumers that their "favorite" company is not leaving their roots, but just branching off to different area. Most people can respect and appreciate an entity trying to make change for the future, but still retaining their identity.
The bottom line is this: consumers, especially older ones, will at least consider the idea of a product that has been reintroduced to the market. At the same time, although this may not seem very risky, that is not the case. The fact that a product was well-established in the past does not guarantee it a future, even if it revamped.
Although this may seem like a perfect route to take, and I do believe that is has the potential to be very successful, this article really just touched the surface. Before making any business decision, especially one of this magnitude, any good business man know that you have to weigh the pros AND the cons. One apparent advantage is that you already have a captive audience. Because of this, it may seem that it is going to take less effort to win those "old users" over again. In one sense, this is true. Consumers that were avid users of a certain product will become nostalgic when they hear that brand or product they used to buy years ago. At the same time, brand loyalty can only go so far. With all of the changes our society is constantly going through, that product that was widely accepted and utilize five years ago maybe obsolete now. The general concept of the product may still be useful, but some drastic changes will have to made to appease those "old users." This isn't to say that some consumers will purchase something just for its nostalgic value, but to keep a product in the market much longer, more needs to be done to sustain its success.
A lot of it depends on the goals of the company. One reason a company may use product rejuvenation is to fill in a gap between productivity periods. For example, a typical scenario could be that Company A needs more time to fully develop their newest product. In the mean time, the revival of a past successful product could buy more time, and keep their brand fresh in the minds of their consumers. This is more of a short term goal. Another use for rejuvenation, in terms of a new product release, could be to show consumers that their "favorite" company is not leaving their roots, but just branching off to different area. Most people can respect and appreciate an entity trying to make change for the future, but still retaining their identity.
The bottom line is this: consumers, especially older ones, will at least consider the idea of a product that has been reintroduced to the market. At the same time, although this may not seem very risky, that is not the case. The fact that a product was well-established in the past does not guarantee it a future, even if it revamped.
Monday, February 11, 2008
If You Can't Take The Heat...
Creativity and innovation. These are two concepts that obviously don't just happen by themselves. Right? In the article "Hot Groups," from Havard Business Review, that theory is tested. The term hot group refers to a very active, dedicated, intense collection of people set out to use these characteristics to create something that is unbeatable. The people that make up a hot group are what you might call workaholics. They live, eat, and sleep their work, constantly fixated on the task at hand.. For a hot group to flourish, there are of course several stipulations that have to be followed. Basically, you have to treat them differently most other employees. As long as the hot group is being productive, special treatment may seem justified.
According to the article, hot groups are only effective in short bursts. Obviously, you can only ask so much of your employees. If employees are worked too hard, there is a natural reaction to burn out. I understand the concept of having a "hot group," but in my opinion, I would rather retain a group of people like this for as long as possible instead of just hoping for a small burst of intensity every once in awhile. Even if they aren't necessarily apart of the hot group, I would still want those employees to remain productive within the company. This article somewhat relates the importance of clever people in an organization. They know how much of an asset they are to the company, but everything has to remain in retrospect to the company's overlying goals.
Although this article states that hot groups cannot necessarily be formed and only grown, I believe that it is still possible to create a group a passionate individuals who will work just as hard as a so called "hot group." This past week, I attended the Concert Industry Consortium (CIC) where important executives from all aspects of the music business came to network and learn about new trends in the market. Not all, but in my opinion, several of the firms represened at the conference could be considered hot groups. And when I call them a hot group, I am referring to their dedication to their own cause. These people are so passionate about what they do. They live and breathe their work, and their day in the office almost never ends at 5:00 pm. Working a 12-18 hour day is normal for some.
I will admit that forming a group like this isn't easy at all. Careful orchestration is necessary to do so. At the same time though, it isn't smart to rule out the possibility, as a manager, of creating a bubble of energy from your employees.
According to the article, hot groups are only effective in short bursts. Obviously, you can only ask so much of your employees. If employees are worked too hard, there is a natural reaction to burn out. I understand the concept of having a "hot group," but in my opinion, I would rather retain a group of people like this for as long as possible instead of just hoping for a small burst of intensity every once in awhile. Even if they aren't necessarily apart of the hot group, I would still want those employees to remain productive within the company. This article somewhat relates the importance of clever people in an organization. They know how much of an asset they are to the company, but everything has to remain in retrospect to the company's overlying goals.
Although this article states that hot groups cannot necessarily be formed and only grown, I believe that it is still possible to create a group a passionate individuals who will work just as hard as a so called "hot group." This past week, I attended the Concert Industry Consortium (CIC) where important executives from all aspects of the music business came to network and learn about new trends in the market. Not all, but in my opinion, several of the firms represened at the conference could be considered hot groups. And when I call them a hot group, I am referring to their dedication to their own cause. These people are so passionate about what they do. They live and breathe their work, and their day in the office almost never ends at 5:00 pm. Working a 12-18 hour day is normal for some.
I will admit that forming a group like this isn't easy at all. Careful orchestration is necessary to do so. At the same time though, it isn't smart to rule out the possibility, as a manager, of creating a bubble of energy from your employees.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Don't Think Beyond The Box
Just about everyday, everyone is having to think of new ideas. This could simply be what someone is going to cook for dinner that night to creating the newest technology that will change the market for years to come. In the article "Breakthrough Thinking From Inside The Box," a new form of brainstorming is discussed in great detail. How common is this scenario: a group of about twenty employees gather in a single room to brainstorm new ideas for either a new product or how to improvement what they are already doing. Most often, this type of teamwork gets nowhere. Ideas may be brought forth, but not in the most efficient manner.
In my product management class, we did a similar type of discussion: what could the future hold for the Apple iPhone. After a few minutes of thinking to ourselves, each person in the class announced their own idea. By the end, there was a dry erase board full of very possible ideas. This article says that open-ended brainstorming doesn't work, but in this case we were quite successful. Why is this? I think that one reason this exercise worked is that we were all in the same mindset. The iPhone is something that greatly appeals to our age group, 20s-30s. Instead of thinking of outrageous ideas, we kept in mind that these improvements have to be ones that we would actually use ourselves. The open-ended brainstorming strategy may only work if the group chosen for the discussion have some kind of attachment to the product or idea, whether it be an emotional one or a vague one.
Still, the inside-the-box thinking style is a revolutionary one. Because it narrows down the playing field of thought, there is much less room for bringing unnecessary things. From my own personal experience, I've had too many group brainstorms that turn into arguments over pointless issues. Its easy to stray from the task at hand. Although this new method is successful, how user friendly is it? Everything looks great on paper, but when you put it into use, it may not seem so feasible. For this brainstorming method to work, the team leader has to be very conscious what he is doing. Several of the stipulations required to have this type of group discussion include: structure the meeting so that the social norm works for you, not against you; focus on your preselected objectives; separate the over-confident people from those who are more soft-spoken. These are all very possible, but I don't believe that this article takes in consideration that many of these things may not work, depending on the work environment you are in.
Thinking inside the box is something we should start striving for in the future, but I think that box needs to be made a little bigger to allow for any problems with the process that may arise.
In my product management class, we did a similar type of discussion: what could the future hold for the Apple iPhone. After a few minutes of thinking to ourselves, each person in the class announced their own idea. By the end, there was a dry erase board full of very possible ideas. This article says that open-ended brainstorming doesn't work, but in this case we were quite successful. Why is this? I think that one reason this exercise worked is that we were all in the same mindset. The iPhone is something that greatly appeals to our age group, 20s-30s. Instead of thinking of outrageous ideas, we kept in mind that these improvements have to be ones that we would actually use ourselves. The open-ended brainstorming strategy may only work if the group chosen for the discussion have some kind of attachment to the product or idea, whether it be an emotional one or a vague one.
Still, the inside-the-box thinking style is a revolutionary one. Because it narrows down the playing field of thought, there is much less room for bringing unnecessary things. From my own personal experience, I've had too many group brainstorms that turn into arguments over pointless issues. Its easy to stray from the task at hand. Although this new method is successful, how user friendly is it? Everything looks great on paper, but when you put it into use, it may not seem so feasible. For this brainstorming method to work, the team leader has to be very conscious what he is doing. Several of the stipulations required to have this type of group discussion include: structure the meeting so that the social norm works for you, not against you; focus on your preselected objectives; separate the over-confident people from those who are more soft-spoken. These are all very possible, but I don't believe that this article takes in consideration that many of these things may not work, depending on the work environment you are in.
Thinking inside the box is something we should start striving for in the future, but I think that box needs to be made a little bigger to allow for any problems with the process that may arise.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
